I personally believe that the Gang up in Washington dc(district of criminals),the majority of both the Democrats and Majority of the Republicans are either bribed or blackmailed to do what ever they are told, and if they refuse, they are exposed by their own people for some past indescretion ,that is being held over their heads, so those people who are supposed to be representing us can not do so,because they have been compromised,and are no longer useful to us(WE THE PEOPLE) So they support the WARS since they have been bought and paid for in many ways.(women, boys, parties , money, shares,or stocks)To me it is obvious that the war criminals have not quit yet, but now have their gun sights aiming at IRAN<SYRIA <RUSSIA< AND CHINA, no end in sight(ONE WORLD ORDER) We need to put all these WAR Criminals, including Congress on trial for War Crimes,Murder and TREASON. We need to get started on this project ,while we still can. We got Criminals running this country that many of them should be behind bars.We need to get TRIALS STARTED!! (FAIR TRIALS)

Amen!!!!

His intelligence level is questionable and the war in Iraq is illegal, there is no way around it.

Supposedly that is what they impeached Clinton for LYING, right???

I disagree with your opionion on the war, but you have excellent taste in dogs! He looks so cool in his hat!

Amen

Right on!

I too disagree, ONLY A very uninformed person WOULD BELIEVE THAT BECAUSE WE ARE IN IRAQ THAT IS A REASON FOR US NOT TO HAVE ANOTHER ATTACK!!!!

We are not having any more attacks because of the improved homeland security, it is still faulty but it is improved. That is the reason for no more attacks, has absolutely nothing to do with us being in Iraq

you keep saying this war is illegal...maybe by your terms but you really don't count so please tell me when the international court declared this war illegal....

Was The Iraq War Legal, Or Illegal, Under International Law?

"Advantage is a better soldier than rashness." -Montjoy in Wm. Shakespeare's Henry V, 3.6.120

Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D.

09/17/04 "ICH" -- During a BBC radio interview on Wednesday, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan created a controversy by reiterating his long-held position that the Iraq War was illegal because it breached the United Nations Charter. [1] On Thursday, the imperial leaders of the "Coalition of the Willing" retaliated by vehemently arguing that their Iraq War was, to the contrary, legal. [2]

Obviously, this dispute raises a legal question: "Whose opinion is correct, and whose is incorrect?" Additionally, we should be asking ourselves: "Who decides? (i.e., 'Whose jurisprudential opinion shall be dispositive for purposes of resolving this dispute?')"

It seems eminently reasonable -- even for the disputants -- to conclude that the optimal source of guidance on this question of international law would have to be the world's foremost experts in the field of international law. Hence, the UN's chief and the coalition's leaders need to know how the world's top international law experts would resolve their jurisprudential dispute. And we, the people, need to know who's right and who's wrong here.

Realistically, one cannot seriously expect the disputants -- much less their national electorates -- to wade through numerous legal documents, most of which contain rigorous and not-occasionally tedious reasoning, to find the correct answer. Thus, it seems prudent to proceed directly to the world's most authoritative answer to our pressing question du jour: "Was the Iraq War legal, or illegal, under international law?"

And The World's Most Authoritative Answer Is ... Among the world's foremost experts in the field of international law, the overwhelming jurisprudential consensus is that the Anglo-American invasion, conquest, and occupation of Iraq constitute three phases of one illegal war of aggression. [3]

Moreover, these experts in the international law of war deem both preventive wars and preemptive strikes to be euphemistic subcategories of outlawed wars of aggression.

And the experts' answer would hold true regardless of whether their governing legal authority was: (A) the UN Security Council Resolutions that were passed to implement the conflict-resolution provisions of the UN Charter; or (B) prior treaties and juridical holdings which have long since become general international law. [4]

Readers who need to "trust but verify" (i.e., to corroborate) for themselves that the experts' overwhelming opinion is exactly as stated above should read a document entitled "15 January 2003." (Find it by scrolling down approximately one-fourth of the way, after you've clicked onto this ES website: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm "The Legality Of The Iraq War" .) Why?

That document was drafted and signed by the world's foremost international law experts -- the prestigious International Commission of International Law Jurists -- to provide ultimate proof of their authoritative opinion concerning the legal status of war against Iraq. Furthermore, this large body of eminent international law experts explicitly stated that they'd drafted their legal document in order to advise Messrs. Bush and Blair prior to the invasion: (1) that it would be blatantly illegal under international law for the Anglo-American belligerents to invade Iraq; and (2) that their joint decision as Commanders-in-Chief to commence hostilities would constitute prosecutable war crimes.

Skeptical readers who don't regard this highly-authoritative conclusion as an adequate answer are invited to undertake the legal reasoning for themselves at the ES website. Note that every applicable Article in the UN Charter, and every relevant UN Security Council Resolution, is cited and analyzed therein. And readers who continue to scroll down the ES website will find a succession of articles which summarize the opinions of noteworthy individual experts on international law. These, too, strongly confirm that the invasion of Iraq constituted an illegal war of aggression under international law. [5]

Finally, ambitious readers will learn what non-credible source was most responsible for propagating the fictitious pre-war claim that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon (hint: yet another uncredentialed neocon think-tanker from the thoroughly-discredited American Enterprise Institute).

Three Conclusions It is the overwhelming consensus of the world's foremost international law experts that: (1) UN Secretary General Annan's opinion is correct (i.e., true) because the Iraq War was, indeed, illegal; and

(2) the opinion of the "Coalition of the Willing's" leaders is incorrect (i.e., false) because their Iraq War was NOT legal.

(3) Therefore, Americans must break free of the neocons' self-delusional groupthink mentality by learning to differentiate between fact and truth, which are all-too-easily confused. For instance, it's an undeniable fact that Messrs. Bush and Cheney have been arguing along the campaign trail that "The Iraq War was legal!" Nevertheless, the mere fact that they've been vehemently arguing that point certainly does NOT make it true! Their argument is flawed by a logical fallacy called an ipse dixit (i.e., "something asserted but not proved"). As we've already seen, their argument is just plain WRONG AS A MATTER OF LAW! Therefore, Messrs. Bush and Cheney are making a false argument (i.e., deceptively asserting something that is untrue).

The Bottom Line Americans should reject the temptation to vote for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, because: (1) both men were advised beforehand that their decision to commence the invasion of Iraq would be blatantly illegal under international law; (2) they invaded nonetheless, and now they're cynically attempting to mislead the public again by falsely arguing that "The Iraq War was legal!"; (3) however, their argument is legally-meritless nonsense -- the current equivalent of their earlier false argument that torture is a legal method for the US military's interrogation of prisoners; (4) they've repeatedly demonstrated their disdain for universal human rights and democratic governance under the rule of law; and

(5) the 21st-century world isn't Tombstone's OK Corral and they certainly aren't Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday -- however much they might wish us to believe that they are! [6]

ENDNOTES

[1] Read this 9-16-04 PI article by clicking on these blue words: http://www.politinfo.com/articles/article_2004_09_16_4815.html "UN Says Nothing New In Annan's 'Illegal War' Comment". Also see this 9-17-04 GU article, which contends that UN Secretary General Annan's statement wasn't his long-held opinion, but is new and belated: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1306642,00.html "The War Was Illegal"

[2] Read this 9-17-04 JO article by clicking on these blue words: http://snipurl.com/94y0 "Bush Joins Coalition Leaders In Defending War Against Iraq"

[3] Read the 9-15-04 ES's indispensable analysis by clicking on these blue words: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm#TOP Legality of the Iraq War. If the click-on doesn't link, paste this URL into your webserver: http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/bbiraqwar.htm [Skeptical readers should not read to confirm their biases, but instead should set their biases aside until they've finished reading all of the legal arguments on this website, which will take awhile.]

[4] There seems to be one relevant omission from the ES website. General international law could have been be cited as an alternative basis for proving the Iraq War's illegality by analyzing these authoritative precedents: (A) the Kellogg-Briand Pact of Paris (1928); and (B) the Charters, Principles, Indictments, and Holdings from the International Military Tribunals at Nüremberg and Tokyo (1945-48).

[5] Generally speaking, legal opinions offered by government attorneys are NOT considered to be authoritative because: (a) they're drafted in the adversarial mode of an advocate, often under self-interested political pressure from the executive branch; (b) even at its best, their reasoning tends toward casuistry, reflecting Cicero's injudicious maxim,"salus populi suprema lex esto" (De Legibus, III, 3.8: "Let the welfare of the people be the supreme law!" Or the Bu****es' tortuous translation thereof: "We feel that we can legally torture our prisoners now if it might save our people later!"); and (c) for an apt example, see the history of the Third Reich's attorneys Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, whose pre-war legal advice to Reichsführer Hitler was that Germany could use the pretext of an imminent threat to "preemptively" invade Poland, for which war crime they were both tried, sentenced, and hanged to death by the International Military Tribunal at Nüremberg. Note bene, Attorney General Ashcroft and Bush administration "torture memo" attorneys Bybee, Chertoff, Gonzales, Haynes and Woo!

[6] Read Douglas Jehl's 9-16-4 CD/SPI article by clicking on these blue words: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0916-02.htm "CIA Analysis Holds Bleak Vision For Iraq's Future". Also see the 9-16-04 Dreyfuss Report column: http://tompaine.com/archives/the_dreyfuss_report.php "Annan For President"

Author: Evan Augustine Peterson III, J.D., is the Executive Director of the American Center for International Law ("ACIL"). <EvPeters8@aol.com>

©2004EAPIII
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

The Iraq War is Illegal

Below is the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B, Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the latest Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal. And We The People are not under any legal or moral obligation to pay for it, let alone let our kids be killed in it.

If anything, Bush and his pro-war Neocon buddies should be required to reimburse the treasury for their private use of government property. I leave the question of civil lawsuits for wrongful deaths to the families of the dead American service people, and the live service people still suffering from depleted uranium.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)

HJ 114 EH

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations' and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 (1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),' that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,' and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge' posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,' while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002'.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--

(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) REPORTS- The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

(b) SINGLE CONSOLIDATED REPORT- To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.

(c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- To the extent that the information required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2002.

Attest:

Clerk.

107th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. J. RES. 114

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

dragon....Thats all very nice but if you read a little you'll discover that it is not the UN's place to decide if a war is legal or not. The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the UN so that court, commonly known as the World Court has the jurisdiction to declare the war illegal. In other words until you can offer the ruling of that court of the Iraq war you really should stop going around telling everyone it's an illegal war unless you preempt that false statement with that it's merely your opinion of the war.

Blix: Iraq War Was Illegal
Blair's defense is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector

by Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorizing the use of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.


Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix. (AFP/File/Sven Nackstrand)

His intervention goes to the heart of the current controversy over Lord Goldsmith's advice, and comes as the Prime Minister begins his fightback with a speech on Iraq today.


An unrepentant Mr Blair will refuse to apologize for the war in Iraq, insisting the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He will point to the wider benefits of the Iraq conflict, citing Libya's decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction, but warn that the world cannot turn a blind eye to the continuing threat from WMD.

But, in an exclusive interview, Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."

And it appeared yesterday that the Government shared that view until the eve of war, when it received the Lord Goldsmith's final advice.

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorize military action.

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent. "Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view, the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other, theoretically," Mr Blix said.

The Attorney General's opinion has come under fresh scrutiny since the collapse of the trial against the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun last week, prompting calls for his full advice to be made public.

Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect there is a more skeptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.

It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to justify war.

Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorizing force should have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."

In the interview, ahead of the publication next week of his book Disarming Iraq: The search for weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blix dismissed the suggestion that Mr Blair should resign or apologize over the failure to find any WMD in Iraq.

But he suggested that the Prime Minister may have been fatally wounded by his loss of credibility, and that voters would deliver their verdict. "Some people say Bush and Blair should be put before a tribunal and I say that you have the punishment in the political field here," he said. "Their credibility has been affected by this: Bush too lost some credibility."

He repeated accusations the US and British governments were "hyped" intelligence and lacking critical thinking. "They used exclamation marks instead of question marks."

"I have some understanding for that. Politicians have to simplify to explain, they also have to act in this world before they have 100 per cent evidence. But I think they went further."

"But I never said they had acted in bad faith," he added. "Perhaps it was worse that they acted out of good faith."

The threat allegedly posed by Saddam's WMD was the prime reason cited by the British government for going to war. But not a single item of banned weaponry has been found in the 11 months that have followed the declared end of hostilities.

Mr Blair will argue that similar decisive action will need to be taken in future to combat the threat of rogue states and terrorists obtaining WMD.

© 2004 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd

The War on Iraq: Legal Issues
After months of trying to rally international support for a war and a two-day ultimatum demanding that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein step down, the United States attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. The goal, U.S. President George W. Bush said in a speech, was "to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger."

Experts disagree as to whether the war was legal under international law. Under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, to which the United States is a party, a nation's use of force is authorized under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42.

Self Defense

Since it was not directly attacked by Iraq the United States did not have an obvious right to self-defense. The administration, though, argued that it had a right to defend itself preemptively against a future possible attack. In his speech to the United Nations on September 12, 2002, President Bush described Saddam Hussein's regime as "a grave and gathering danger," detailed that regime's persistent efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and spoke of an "outlaw regime" providing such weapons to terrorists. For an extensive discussion of international law and the preemptive use of force, see the Congressional Research Service's Report for Congress of September 23, 2002.

While arguing for preemption, the administration also suggested that the United States had a right to self-defense on the grounds that the Iraqi regime was connected to Al Qaeda, the organization responsible for the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001. In February 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council that Iraq was harboring a terrorist cell led by Abu Musab Zarqawi, a suspected associate of Al Qaeda. Powell also said that senior Iraqi and Al Qaeda leaders had met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Ansar al-Islam, an Islamist militia group, was also suspected of ties to Al Qaeda, and was based in a lawless part of northeast Iraq, though it was not known to have cooperated with Saddam Hussein.

For more information on Iraq and the use of terrorism, see Iraqi Ties to Terrorism from the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Security Council

The 15-member United Nations Security Council did not authorize the March 19, 2003 attack on Iraq. It unanimously passed Resolution 1441 on November 8, 2002, calling for new inspections intended to find and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. (The Arms Control Association provides a chronology of previous weapons inspections in Iraq.) Iraq accepted the renewed inspections, which were to be carried out by UNMOVIC and the IAEA. Under the terms of the resolution, if Iraq obstructed their work, the chief inspectors were to report promptly back to the Security Council, which would "convene immediately" to consider the situation and "the need for full compliance." The resolution also threatened "serious consequences" if Iraq failed to comply.

The United States, backed by Britain and Spain, began to seek a second U.N. resolution to declare Iraq in material breach of its obligation to disarm. Veto-wielding permanent members France, Russia and China, as well as a number of other members, preferred to give inspectors more time on the premise that inspections were working. Up against a deeply divided Council, the U.S. pulled its proposal on March 17.

The U.S. administration argued that it had enough legal support for its subsequent military action, based on resolution 1441 as well as two previous Security Council resolutions: 678, which in 1990 authorized the U.N. to take military action against Iraq, and 687, which set the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War. Administration lawyers said that because Iraq never lived up to the terms of the cease-fire, the use force was now valid.

In answer to a question in parliament, Great Britain’s Attorney General Lord Goldsmith issued a March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. The Australian Attorney General’s Department issued a memorandum on March 18th, also supporting the use of force against Iraq.

Other Legal Issues

Nations at war are required to follow the law of war, also known as international humanitarian law. Based on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 as well as customary international law, the law of war regulates military operations in an attempt to protect civilians from the devastation of war. The Center for Defense Information and Human Rights Watch both offer useful discussions of humanitarian law.

DOCUMENTS
Charter of the United Nations. Chapter VII, Article 42 states that if peaceful means have not succeeded in obtaining adherence to Security Council decisions, the Security Council may take such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Chapter VII, Article 51 allows for states to use force in self-defense.
Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. Parts of the Conventions are also available here.
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
U.N. Security Council Resolution 678 adopted November 29, 1990, authorizing the U.N. to take military action against Iraq.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 adopted April 3, 1991, setting the terms of the cease-fire at the end of the 1991 Gulf War.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1284 adopted December 17, 1999, establishing UNMOVIC.
U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 adopted November 8, 2002, calling for renewed weapons inspections.
Iraq's letter to the United Nations of November 13, 2002, accepting renewed arms inspections.
United States Code Title 50, Chapter 33, the War Powers Resolution.
U.S. House Joint Resolution signed October 16, 2002, authorizing the president to attack Iraq.
British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith’s March 17th statement supporting the use of force against Iraq. This statement is also available here.
The Australian Attorney General’s March 18th memorandum supporting the use of force against Iraq.

ARTICLES AND COMMENTARY
David M. Ackerman, International Law and the Preemptive Use of Force Against Iraq, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, (September 23, 2002).
David M. Ackerman, Response to Terrorism: Legal Aspects of the Use of Military Force, Congressional Research Service, (September 13, 2001).
Thomas M. Franck, When, If Ever, May States Deploy Military Force Without Prior Security Council Authorization? 5 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 51 (2001).
Gavan Griffith, Notes on the Legal Justification for the Invasion of Iraq and Security Council Resolutions 678 and 1441, Sydney Morning Herald, (March 21, 2003).
Richard F. Grimmett, U.S. Use of Preemptive Military Force, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, (September 18, 2002).
Devika Hovell and George Williams, Nowhere to Hide Behind the Letter of the Law (Sydney Morning Herald, March 19, 2003).
International Humanitarian Law Issues in a Potential War With Iraq, Human Rights Watch, (February 20, 2003).
Iraq: Questions Regarding the Laws of War, Center for Defense Information ‚ Terrorism Project, (March 18, 2003).
Ali Khan, Above and Beyond International Law: George W. Bush as the Austinian Sovereign, JURIST ‚ University of Pittsburgh School of Law, (March 31, 2003).
Michael Kelly, Could the New International Criminal Court try Americans for War Crimes in Iraq?, JURIST ‚ University of Pittsburgh School of Law, (March 17, 2003).
Frederic L. Kirgis, Armed Force in Iraq, ASIL Insights, (March 18, 2003).
Lawrence J. Lee, Mark R. Shulman et al., The Legality and Constitutionality of the Presidentís Authority to Initiate an Invasion of Iraq, 41 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 15, (2002).
Mary Ellen O'Connell, The Myth of Preemptive Self-Defense, The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism, (August 2002).
The United Nations Charter and the Use of Force Against Iraq, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, (October 2, 2002).

OTHER RESOURCES
The Arms Control Association
Bill Slomanson's page on UN Security Resolution 1441
Columbia International Affairs Online Special Section on U.S. Policy and Iraq
Crimes of War Project ‚ The War in Iraq
Crisis in Iraq from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Electronic Iraq : International Law
Iraqi Jurist's Association
Links on International Law and Iraq from the Global Policy Forum
Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
Lawyers Against the War
Legal Resources for U.S. Involvement in Afghanistan from the U.S. Department of State
The International Atomic Energy Agency
Terrorism Answers from the Council on Foreign Relations
University of Amsterdam International Law Library‚ The Conflict with Iraq
UNMOVIC

Written January 29, 2003; Last updated May 15, 2007.

like I said that's all very nice...now can you please point out the ruling of the World Court or stop wasting my time

Rumsfeld Flees France, Fearing Arrest
AlterNet
October 29, 2007
Former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of "ordering and authorizing" torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the U.S. military's detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest. U.S. embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush's "war on terror" for six years.

Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil. According to activists in France, who greeted Rumsfeld, shouting "murderer" and "war criminal" at the breakfast meeting venue, U.S. embassy officials remained tight-lipped about the former defense secretary's whereabouts citing "security reasons". Anti-torture protesters in France believe that the defense secretary fled over the open border to Germany, where a war crimes case against Rumsfeld was dismissed by a federal court. But activists point out that under the Schengen agreement that ended border checkpoints across a large part of the European Union, French law enforcement agents are allowed to cross the border into Germany in pursuit of a fleeing fugitive. "Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when U.S. forces were hunting him down," activist Tanguy Richard said. "He may never end up being hanged like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilized world, war crime doesn't pay."

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights (LDH) filed the complaint on Thursday after learning that Rumsfeld was scheduled to visit Paris.

Should Bush and cronies be charged with War Crimes?
by Eternal Hope
Wed Oct 03, 2007 at 11:52:00 AM PST
The recent rash of stories about Blackwater should bring renewed focus on whether George Bush is guilty of war crimes as well as some of his cronies. The Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court deals with the actions that should be considered war crimes. Under the statues of the International Criminal Court, George Bush is guilty of at least 24 different war crimes through the conduct of his actions. And that is without considering the crimes of wars of aggression, which have never been ratified and the ICC does not have jurisdiction over.



Eternal Hope's diary :: ::
Earlier, I wrote about the possibility of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, it seemed like there was not enough emphasis on bringing the Bush administration to justice for the crimes that they have committed while they were in office. And should the Congress continue to refuse to pursue impeachment, then we would still have a vehicle by which we can bring them to justice even after they leave office.

The following is a list of crimes that George Bush and his administration should be charged with. The US should bring themselves under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court so that they can be held accountable under international law. By our own standards, if there are no checks and balances to our actions, one day in the future, other people will rise and commit other crimes that make George Bush's look reasonable by comparison. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater look sane compared to this current administration.

And in addition, there is another problem that needs to be solved for future generations. At the moment, wars of aggression do not fall under the auspices of the court because there has never been any international agreement on those scores. The next president of the United States should push for an agreement that would create universally agreed-upon definitions of what a war of aggression would consist of so that wars similar to the invasion and occupation of Iraq would be considered war crimes and violations of international law.

Here are the list of crimes that George W. Bush and some of his enablers are guilty of. This is by no means a complete list; more may be added later in future diaries. This is above and beyond the list of impeachable offenses that I have written about earlier.

Crimes against Humanity

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
Murder:
Erik Prince of Blackwater

Prince should be charged with the crime of murdering 56 civilians in Baghdad while on guard duty as documented by the State Department.

Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
George W. Bush and **** Cheney

Bush and Cheney should be charged with three counts each of false imprisonment for illegally kidnapping and rendering people to Guantanamo and secret dungeons around the world as well as the false imprisonment of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians in Iraqi prisons.

Torture;
George W. Bush and **** Cheney

Bush and Cheney should be charged with five counts each of torture through the torture of inmates at Guantanamo and prisoners rendered around the world, the torture of Curveball during the leadup to war with Iraq, the torture of inmates at Abu Girhab, and the torture of inmates at Afghanistan.

In addition, Alberto Gonzales, in his capacity as White House counsel, should be charged with developing the plan that involved the President and Vice President ignoring international law ratified by the United States, namely, the Geneva Accords.

Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
George W. Bush and **** Cheney

Bush and Cheney should be charged with authorizing or allowing torture of a sexual nature at Abu Girhab.

Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
George W. Bush, **** Cheney, and Paul Bremer

Bush, Cheney, and Paul Bremer should be charged with persecution of a political nature by dismantling the Iraqi government and army because of their Baathist affiliations and creating severe financal hardships for hundreds of thousands of people.

Enforced disappearance of persons;
George W. Bush and **** Cheney

Bush and Cheney should be charged with the enforced disappearences of persons through their policies of extraordinary renditions.

7-2 (a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
George W. Bush, **** Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be charged with the planning and execution of bombing attacks which had no military value and/or which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians.

Section 8 -- War Crimes -- Violations of the Geneva Convention:

The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.
Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

George W. Bush, **** Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be charged with the extensive destruction of property in Iraq not justified by military necessity.

Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

George W. Bush, **** Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales

Bush, Cheney, and Gonzales should be charged with the crimes of developing, implementing, and executing a policy depriving prisoners of the right to trial through the extraordinary rendition program, in Iraq, and at Guantanamo.

Section 8-2 (b)(i) Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
George W. Bush, **** Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld
Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be charged with intentionally launching attacks on civilians during the initial stages of the invasion and occupation of Iraq under the pretext that Saddam was using them as human shields.

Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;
George W. Bush, **** Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be charged with creating widespread, long-term damage to the natural environment through their bombing attacks against Iraq.

The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory;
Paul Bremer, **** Cheney, and Erik Prince

Paul Bremer, **** Cheney, and Erik Prince should be charged with the direct or indirect transfer of civilians to occupied Iraq; namely, the transfer of 160,000 private contractors/mercenaries into Iraq to conduct operations normally reserved for the US Military. Bremer should be charged with the development of the policy allowing contractors into Iraq and being exempt from Iraqi law; Cheney and Prince for the implementation of that policy.

Subjecting persons who are in the power of an adverse party to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are neither justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the person concerned nor carried out in his or her interest, and which cause death to or seriously endanger the health of such person or persons;

George W. Bush and **** Cheney

Bush and Cheney should be charged with bringing in psychologists to Guantanamo for the purposes of conducting torture experiments on the prisoners of Guantanamo.

Declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in a court of law the rights and actions of the nationals of the hostile party;
George W. Bush, **** Cheney, Paul Bremer, Condolezza Rice, Alberto Gonzales, and John Ashcroft

Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, and Ashcroft should be charged with the abolition of rights for detainees after 9/11 in a court of law as well as the use of the Unitary Executive theory and the suspension of the Habeas Corpus to deprive detainees access to the courts.

Bremer should be charged with abolishing the right of the Iraqi government to make laws concerning foreign contractors or allow victims of their shootings redress in the courts; Rice should be charged with aiding and abetting in that crime.

Employing asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous liquids, materials or devices;

George W. Bush, **** Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld

Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld should be charged with the employment of White Phosphorus during the Fallujah Offensive of 2004.

The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all judicial guarantees which are generally recognized as indispensable.
George W. Bush, **** Cheney, and Alberto Gonzales

The creation of extrajudicial courts for the purpose of sentencing Guantanamo prisoners without affording them rights granted by regular courts.

UPDATE: Yes means yes, I support charging Bush and Cheney and the rest with war crimes.

sure you do and I'm sure that is going to carry a lot of weight..but to get back to this illegal war..any luck yet ?

Will Bush, Rumsfeld Be
Tried for War Crimes?
by Edward Spannaus
What the United States did, on the evening of March 19, in launching a imperial, "preventive" war on Iraq, is unquestionably in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and other agreements by which the United States of America, as a signatory, is bound. Indeed, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan repeatedly stated in the days leading up to the U.S. attack, that a unilateral attack by the United States on Iraq would be a violation of the UN Charter.

Were the unlawful actions of the United States to stand as a precedent, the United Nations, which America was instrumental in initiating and founding at the end of the Second World War as a means for preventing war, would lie in shambles, and relations among nations would be reduced to a Hobbesian "war of each against all" in which raw power, not morality or legality, would be the only currency. With the UN unable to protect smaller nations from the U.S. superpower, countries are less likely to bring disputes to the UN Security Council; and, drawing the obvious lesson in the contrasting U.S. treatment of Iraq and North Korea, they will see the acquisition of nuclear weapons as to only means of deterring the United States and getting respect.

The Bush Administration is obviously well aware that this war has no basis in legality. The legal justifications being cynically offered by the Administration are so transparently fraudulent, and rejected by most of the world, that its spokesmen can only be hoping that most citizens will not get behind the headlines and the sound-bites; above all, that they will not act as real citizens, taking personal responsibility for the fate and future of the nation.

The White House Legal Brief
At the March 13 White House press briefing, for example, spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked about the legality of the war, and responded by reading a prepared legal opinion, apparently coming from the State Department Legal Adviser.

Fleischer first read: "The United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorized use of all necessary means to uphold United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area. That was the basis for the use of force against Iraq during the Gulf War." (In fact, Resolution 678 authorized the use of force only for the purpose of expelling the Iraqi military from Kuwait, fully accomplished in 1991.)

"Thereafter," Fleisher continued, "the United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 declared a cease-fire, but imposed several conditions, including extensive WMD-related conditions. Those conditions provided the conditions essential to the restoration of peace and security in the area. A material breach of those conditions removes the basis for the cease-fire and provides the legal grounds for the use of force."

(But, what Fleischer failed to say, was that the implementation of Resolution 687's disarmament provisions is left solely to the Security Council, which was "to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.")

The UN Charter
This is, in fact, consistent with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, signed in 1945. Article 2 of the Charter made it clear that a major purpose of the creation of the United Nations was that member-states were to "refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," except under certainly narrowly defined circumstances.

At all times, member-states are to seek a solution to their disputes through the UN Security Council (Security Council Art. 33), and it is left to the Security Council to make the determination with respect to a threat to the peace, a breach of the peace, or an act of aggression, and to determine what measures are to be taken to maintain or restore international peace and security (Art. 39).

It is only the Security Council that can decide upon the use of force: "Plans for the application of force shall be made by the Security Council with the assistance of the Military Staff Committee..." (Art. 46).

The Security Council may designate all or some member-states to use force to carry out its decisions, but only the Security Council is empowered to make such a determination: "The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine..." (Art. 48).

The exception to this, is if a member-state is attacked by another state: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security" (Art. 51). This is generally understood to include the case in which an attack were imminent, so imminent that the member-state did not have time to take the matter to the Security Council. But that is obviously not the case with respect to the United States and Iraq; no one, even the most rabid chicken-hawk, seriously argues that Iraq is an imminent threat to the security of the United States. Indeed, with the exception of Israel, those countries which are actually within striking range of Saddam Hussein oppose the U.S. attack, and the idea that the weakened and destroyed nation of Iraq poses a threat to U.S. national security, is nonsensical—and is seen as such by the overwhelming majority of the world's nations.

Resolution 1441 and the Security Council
But, what about Resolution 1441, unanimously adopted last November, which is constantly cited by President Bush and members of his Cabinet as giving to the United States the authority to attack Iraq? Did not Resolution 1441 threaten Iraq with "serious consequences" if Iraq remained in "material breach" of its obligations to disarm? The answer is that yes, it did; but again, the determination of both matters was explicitly left to the Security Council to "consider," not to one or two of its members.

It is patently clear that the Security Council does not believe that a material breach has occurred which justifies the immediate use of force. After promising to seek a vote in the Security Council, in which all members would have to "stand up and show where they stand," Bush was forced to abandon the quest for a vote, when it became clear that a majority of Council members were opposed to the U.S.-British-Spanish resolution. And the official summary of the statements by the 15 member-countries in the debate on March 19, shows that no other countries, beside the United States, Britain and Spain, supported the use of force against Iraq—not even Bulgaria, which had been counted as the fourth vote in favor of the U.S.-U.K. resolution. There were always five countries known to oppose the United States, and there were six deemed "undecided." All of those six ultimately opposed ending the inspections and resorting to force at this time.

Thus, when the United States attacked Iraq, it was not simply "by-passing" the Security Council; it was flagrantly violating the Security Council's intention and will.

Nuremberg Tribunal Precedent
The Administration's desperation to provide a legalistic justification for the war, is undoubtedly related to the fact that many statesmen and commentators have challenged it on this point—but it may also have to do with the fact that a number of commentaries and articles have appeared warning that President Bush and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld could eventually find themselves charged with war crimes before the newly inaugurated International Criminal Court (ICC).

While EIR regards the the ICC as an abomination (see EIR, July 27, 2002), it is nonetheless the case that the United States is bound by other treaties and conventions it has sponsored and signed, which could put Bush and others of the war party in legal jeopardy. For example, as we have shown (EIR, Oct. 18, 2002), launching aggressive war is a violation of the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, to which the United States is bound as a signatory, and whose principles were formally adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1950.

The four-power agreement creating the International Military Tribunal for Germany, included in its list of offenses for which there is individual responsibility: "a) Crimes against peace—namely, planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing."

The indictment in the trial of the major war criminals at Nuremberg contained four counts: 1) Conspiracy; 2) Crimes against peace; 3) War crimes; and 4) Crimes against humanity.

Count Two of the Indictment stated: "All the defendants, with diverse other persons, during a period of years preceding 8 May 1945 participated in planning, preparation, initiation, and waging wars of aggression which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances." Twelve defendants were convicted on Count Two, in combination with other counts; seven were sentenced to death by hanging, and the others to imprisonment.

What Is Aggressive War?
In 1974, the UN General Assembly adopted a "Definition of Aggression," which stated: "Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations." It further stated that among the acts which qualify as an act of aggression, are: "The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another state, or any military occupation; ... Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State."

The Chief Delegate of the United States, Warren R. Austin, told the UN General Assembly on Oct. 30, 1946, that the United States was bound by the principles of law declared in the Nuremberg Charter, as well as by the UN Charter, saying that the Charter "makes planning or waging a war of aggression a crime against humanity for which individuals as well as nations can be brought before the bar of international justice, tried, and punished."

CNN Trancript bwlow



WOLF BLITZER
...

Let's check in with Jack Cafferty right now.

Jack, I'm beginning to think maybe I shouldn't have done these interviews yesterday and today. Should I feel guilty?

JACK CAFFERTY, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, I don't know, Wolf. If war breaks out between Pakistan and Afghanistan, you know, you may have some guys coming by andknocking on your door asking for transcripts.

Ordinarily, we don't do a question two days in a row, but this is important enough to be an exception. The House just passed President Bush's bill to redefine the treatment of detainees, and the Senate's expected to do the same thing tomorrow. Buried deep inside this legislation is a provision that will pardon President Bush and all the members of his administration of any possible crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of detainees dated all the way back to September 11, 2001.

At least President Nixon had Gerald Ford to do his dirty work. President Bush is trying to pardon himself.

Here's the deal.

Under the War Crimes Act, violations of the Geneva Conventions are felonies. In some cases, punishable by death.

When the Supreme Court ruled the Geneva Conventions applied to al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, President Bush and his boys were suddenly in big trouble. They had been working these prisoners over pretty good. In an effort to avoid possible prosecution, they're trying to cram this bill through Congress before the end of the week when Congress adjourns. The reason there's such a rush to do this, if the Democrats get control of the House in November, well, this kind of legislation probably wouldn't pass.

You want to know the real disgrace of what these people are about to do or are in the process of doing? Senator Bill Frist and Congressman Dennis Hastert and their Republican stooges apparently don't see anything wrong with this.

I really do wonder sometimes what we're becoming in this country. The question is this: Should Congress pass a bill giving retroactive immunity to President Bush for possible war crimes?

E-mail your thoughts to CaffertyFile@ CNN.com or go to CNN.

Wolf.

BLITZER: Jack, thank you.

Jack Cafferty will be back shortly.